Topic
Under Indian law, the consent of a minor is legally irrelevant in sexual offense cases, particularly under the POCSO Act and Section 376 of the IPC, as minors cannot give valid legal consent regardless of circumstances.
Karnataka High Court grants bail in POCSO case, holding that alleged consensual acts with a 17-year-old victim can be a mitigating factor for bail under Sections 439 CrPC/483 BNSS.
Delhi High Court rules that in cases under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, a minor's birth certificate is definitive proof of age, overriding medical opinion. The court reaffirms that consent of a minor is legally irrelevant, upholding conviction while setting aside kidnapping charges due to voluntary association.
Rajasthan High Court rules that under the POCSO Act, the consent of a minor (17-year-old prosecutrix) does not absolve the accused of liability. Bail was granted based on the absence of force, corroborated victim statements, and no flight risk, reinforcing that POCSO offenses are strict liability regardless of consent.
Allahabad HC ruled that consent of a minor victim under the POCSO Act does not bar bail if prima facie evidence suggests a mutual relationship. The court emphasized that bail decisions must be based on evidence assessment, not merely the gravity of the offense, setting a precedent for similar cases.
The Karnataka High Court reaffirmed that under the POCSO Act, a minor’s consent is legally irrelevant, and mere delay in filing a complaint cannot justify discharge at the preliminary stage under Section 250 of BNSS. The ruling underscores the strict liability framework of POCSO, where the victim’s age overrides any claim of consent, impacting defense strategies in child sexual abuse cases.
Madhya Pradesh High Court suspends sentence in POCSO case where minor was nearly 18, consented to association, and appellant served three years in jail pending appeal.